Deliberative session, another "special" day for the " special" people of Atkinson.
All too frequently could be heard the command "Move the Question" at the Saturday meeting.
Unfortunately, all too frequently, it is used to stifle debate , bar opinion and limit information.
Unfortunately, all too frequently by those who tout civil discourse then find it an inconvenience to their "authority" or "agenda".
Parliamentary rule and order is necessary and must be available especially for legislative sessions having a character like Atkinson town meetings. Parliamentary rule requires that ONLY motions critical to order are allowed by interruption. Any motion to "move the question" normally and fairly can NOT be brought by interruption and requires a second and Super Majority (2/3) vote to carry.
We will see this meeting repeated numerous times on Cable TV before election day. Everyone will have the opportunity to see those officials abuse the process for their own interests.
Sunday, February 4
Saturday, February 3
Deliberative Session...
Has started with the usual reading of the rules I am sure. I apologize that I am unable to report in person on the doings at this august meeting, but I am recording it as I have out of town engagements, and upon my return Monday I will report on everything that happenned, I hope everyone enjoys the show.
We are many.....Every Vote Counts
Attendance is again low at deliberative session. I wish I could be there but unfortunately I have a prior commitment. I will watch the remainder on cable and will report later. For those of you who can make it, I urge you to attend. Arrive late, but arrive.
This just in!!!
This blog has been informed that Selectman Sapia has been at it again Behind the scenes of course. Apparently it is of paramount importance to him that both Budget Committee Chair Mark Acciard and member Brian Boyle be defeated in the current election cycle.
This blog has been informed by town hall sources that at 4:00 pm today as the sign ups were closing, Mr. Fred Thompson signed up for Budget Committee to run against Mr. Acciard, and he apparently did so at Mr. Sapia's behest. We are also told that Mr. Sapia called his good friend Mrs. Osborne to sign up to run against Mr. Boyle.
The shenanigans continue, obviously the selectmen or more accurately a selectman and his sponsors, believe it necesary to change the dynamics of the Budget Committee. This blog hopes that they are unsuccessful, as we are happy with the budget committee's performance in the last two years. They have managed to restrict the budgetary increase while not cutting services. They have accomplished this with grace under fire and in public. This blog feels that the current board of selectmen, or at least two of them, could take lessons from the budget committee in how to conduct their business as publicly as possible. The Town has the minutes, and the budget online for all to see for the first time. If only the selectmen would conduct all business in the open.
This blog has been informed by town hall sources that at 4:00 pm today as the sign ups were closing, Mr. Fred Thompson signed up for Budget Committee to run against Mr. Acciard, and he apparently did so at Mr. Sapia's behest. We are also told that Mr. Sapia called his good friend Mrs. Osborne to sign up to run against Mr. Boyle.
The shenanigans continue, obviously the selectmen or more accurately a selectman and his sponsors, believe it necesary to change the dynamics of the Budget Committee. This blog hopes that they are unsuccessful, as we are happy with the budget committee's performance in the last two years. They have managed to restrict the budgetary increase while not cutting services. They have accomplished this with grace under fire and in public. This blog feels that the current board of selectmen, or at least two of them, could take lessons from the budget committee in how to conduct their business as publicly as possible. The Town has the minutes, and the budget online for all to see for the first time. If only the selectmen would conduct all business in the open.
Thursday, February 1
Master...... The Warrant has arrived, Master....
Well, The warrant has been printed and mailed and it is a long one. There is likely to be a very interesting deliberative session Saturday. View this as the playoffs of the political season, with election day being the super bowl.
We start off with the election of Officers, and in flagrant disregard for the stated will of the vast majority of last years voters, who passed Article 21; which clearly stated;
to see if the town will vote to prohibit people actively employed by the Town of Atkinson, as well as those who serve as Dept. Heads within the Town of Atkinson, from SERVING ON, OR BEING ELECTED TO, the board of selectmen, the budget committee.
We have TWO town employees who evidently feel that their desire to be elected outweighs the wishes of the electorate. Yes we know that there is a petition warrant article to overturn this, but that has not passed yet, and what is stated above is the current town law. Now the phrase "prohibit....being elected to" should bar them from signing up. If you cant do what the voters say, then you should not be in public office! PERIOD! Or they could quit their town jobs now and run for the office. By refusing to do that they in effect nullify the election for others. Last year Mrs. Morelli ran but did not take her office, as she didn't wish to quit, if elected will she quit this year? and if not how is that fair to any of the candidates running against her?
This type of egomaniacal behavior on the parts of Mr. Childs and Mrs. Morelli need to be stopped. Atkinson can and needs to do better! Moreover we deserve better!
We start off with the election of Officers, and in flagrant disregard for the stated will of the vast majority of last years voters, who passed Article 21; which clearly stated;
to see if the town will vote to prohibit people actively employed by the Town of Atkinson, as well as those who serve as Dept. Heads within the Town of Atkinson, from SERVING ON, OR BEING ELECTED TO, the board of selectmen, the budget committee.
We have TWO town employees who evidently feel that their desire to be elected outweighs the wishes of the electorate. Yes we know that there is a petition warrant article to overturn this, but that has not passed yet, and what is stated above is the current town law. Now the phrase "prohibit....being elected to" should bar them from signing up. If you cant do what the voters say, then you should not be in public office! PERIOD! Or they could quit their town jobs now and run for the office. By refusing to do that they in effect nullify the election for others. Last year Mrs. Morelli ran but did not take her office, as she didn't wish to quit, if elected will she quit this year? and if not how is that fair to any of the candidates running against her?
This type of egomaniacal behavior on the parts of Mr. Childs and Mrs. Morelli need to be stopped. Atkinson can and needs to do better! Moreover we deserve better!
Monday, January 29
Vietnam Memorial- One person's opinion
It appears that Atkinson will have two Viet Nam Memorials soon. For almost two years, a polarized community brought a decision on where to place the name tablets to a stalemate. Now, that’s over. The name tablets will be placed on the Library grounds, joining the memorials of all other past wars. The Town Hall monument will remain “unscathed”.
I heard a man on the news last night. He’s veteran of the Iraq war, recently released from the hospital detour he had to take on his way home. His home-town welcomed him joyously; his boss assured him he still had a job. All was well. But this man also remembered his first return, as a Viet Nam veteran. As a soldier, then, he had been ordered by his boss – the President of the United States – to go to war, and he did what he was told to do. When he returned home, he was jeered, sworn at, spit on, and told he no longer had a job
I’m thinking that the bitterness and anger surrounding the Viet Nam war lives on in Atkinson today, and I cannot say I am proud of us. All veterans deserve recognition and honor.
But that’s almost over now. Atkinson will have two monuments; the one at the Library, showing the names of all Atkinsonians who served in Viet Nam; and the other one. Too bad. I believe the man who worked so hard to bring the Town Hall memorial to Atkinson would have wanted them all together, as a symbol that the Town was ready to acknowledge their service. .
Minerva
I heard a man on the news last night. He’s veteran of the Iraq war, recently released from the hospital detour he had to take on his way home. His home-town welcomed him joyously; his boss assured him he still had a job. All was well. But this man also remembered his first return, as a Viet Nam veteran. As a soldier, then, he had been ordered by his boss – the President of the United States – to go to war, and he did what he was told to do. When he returned home, he was jeered, sworn at, spit on, and told he no longer had a job
I’m thinking that the bitterness and anger surrounding the Viet Nam war lives on in Atkinson today, and I cannot say I am proud of us. All veterans deserve recognition and honor.
But that’s almost over now. Atkinson will have two monuments; the one at the Library, showing the names of all Atkinsonians who served in Viet Nam; and the other one. Too bad. I believe the man who worked so hard to bring the Town Hall memorial to Atkinson would have wanted them all together, as a symbol that the Town was ready to acknowledge their service. .
Minerva
Sunday, January 28
The Verdict is in......
Sapia and Childs keep their Jobs as selectmen...... for now!
While I am certain that we will hear from them on Monday night, just how innocent and victimized they were, but here are a few facts from the case file that might prove interesting, First of all Why Mrs. Grant failed to unseat them.
First this was truly a David and Goliath case; The private citizen, unschooled in the law, insistent upon representing herself, and on the other side of the bar.... One of the more reknowned municipal law attornies in Southern NH, Sumner Kalman. Mr. Kalman has been waging these battles in court for over 20 years and mostly successfully. This was clearly a case where good legal advice would have paid dividends.
Secondly, it is almost immpossible to remove an elected official. This is because any judge is cognizant of the fact that this is tantamount to overturning an election. Yes, the law says in 42:1 Oath Required. – Every town officer shall make and subscribe the oath or declaration as prescribed by part 2, article 84 of the constitution of New Hampshire and any such person who violates said oath after taking the same shall be forthwith dismissed from the office involved. But in reality the offenses have to be numerous, or egregious to ACTUALLY be removed. Yet Mrs. Grant attempted the Herculean task of trying to remove not one corrupt official but an entire board of them! And for this attempt, We the people of Atkinson owe her and all those who have put their time, money, reputations, on the line to stand up for what is right, a debt of gratitude.
Thirdly, The case was originaly against the ENTIRE BOARD at that time which included selectman Consentino. When Consentino failed to regain office in March of 2006, Kalman got him dismissed from the case as he could no longer be removed from office. This was brilliant in as much as the most egregious offenses were committed by this earnest gentleman. Even the Rockingham Superior Court in it's Order on Mrs. Grant's petition for removal states; "Mr. Consentino's behavior, which entailed a violation of this court's orders." and in the very next sentence "It was not incumbent upon selectman Childs and Sapia to provide a route for redress to citizens affected or offended by MR. CONSENTINO'S CONTEMPTUOUS DISREGARD OF JUDGE MCHUGH'S ORDERS." and lastly the next sentence " Messrs. Childs and Sapia appropriately attempted to go about their duties as selectmen as best they could IN LIGHT OF MR. CONSENTINO'S BEHAVIOR."
The result was that once Consentino was removed from the case as a defendent, all of the actions he committed were off the table for discussion. And even though his actions, chacterized by the Court as, contemptuous, were the prime reason for the suit in the first place, thereby costing the Town thousands of dollars, Selectman Sapia and Childs voted to pay his personal attorney in the matter with taxpayer money! And what did the town get for it's hard- earned money? You may ask, On 31 separate questions asked of the Chief by Mrs. Grant, the answer was "On advise of counsel, I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me." This from a 30 year Chief of police! If you "refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate you" doesn't it follow that you did something incriminating in the first place? By the way, how could the two defendents, who benefitted from Mr. Consentino's testimony, vote to spend taxpayer money on his personal legal expenses? Isn't that a conflict? They also received Mr. Sapia making the ridiculous statement that "We never cut anyone off, or threatened to remove anyone from meetings" This was an attempt to contradict Budget Committee Chair Acciard's testimony that the Board of Selectmen threatened him with removal(by the police) if he continued to ask the board how they were able to purchase an SUV 8 days after the election without even a vote to do so. At the April 18, 2005 selectmen's meeting. A review of the tape of that meeting shows the chairman of the board of selectmen saying in response to Acciard's question "we will not answer questions on that subject, if you continue with these questions I will have my men remove you" .
Ultimately this case was the victim of a weak pleading, self- representation unschooled in the law, and the timing that allowed Mr. Consentino to once again escape any accountability for his actions.
It appeared that the Court agreed with this blog in that one can do many things that are morally reprehensible, but technically legal. You cross the line of what is the right thing long before you get to the line of what is legal. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have town officials that stopped short BEFORE crossing the what is right line, and never got anywhere near the illegal line?
While I am certain that we will hear from them on Monday night, just how innocent and victimized they were, but here are a few facts from the case file that might prove interesting, First of all Why Mrs. Grant failed to unseat them.
First this was truly a David and Goliath case; The private citizen, unschooled in the law, insistent upon representing herself, and on the other side of the bar.... One of the more reknowned municipal law attornies in Southern NH, Sumner Kalman. Mr. Kalman has been waging these battles in court for over 20 years and mostly successfully. This was clearly a case where good legal advice would have paid dividends.
Secondly, it is almost immpossible to remove an elected official. This is because any judge is cognizant of the fact that this is tantamount to overturning an election. Yes, the law says in 42:1 Oath Required. – Every town officer shall make and subscribe the oath or declaration as prescribed by part 2, article 84 of the constitution of New Hampshire and any such person who violates said oath after taking the same shall be forthwith dismissed from the office involved. But in reality the offenses have to be numerous, or egregious to ACTUALLY be removed. Yet Mrs. Grant attempted the Herculean task of trying to remove not one corrupt official but an entire board of them! And for this attempt, We the people of Atkinson owe her and all those who have put their time, money, reputations, on the line to stand up for what is right, a debt of gratitude.
Thirdly, The case was originaly against the ENTIRE BOARD at that time which included selectman Consentino. When Consentino failed to regain office in March of 2006, Kalman got him dismissed from the case as he could no longer be removed from office. This was brilliant in as much as the most egregious offenses were committed by this earnest gentleman. Even the Rockingham Superior Court in it's Order on Mrs. Grant's petition for removal states; "Mr. Consentino's behavior, which entailed a violation of this court's orders." and in the very next sentence "It was not incumbent upon selectman Childs and Sapia to provide a route for redress to citizens affected or offended by MR. CONSENTINO'S CONTEMPTUOUS DISREGARD OF JUDGE MCHUGH'S ORDERS." and lastly the next sentence " Messrs. Childs and Sapia appropriately attempted to go about their duties as selectmen as best they could IN LIGHT OF MR. CONSENTINO'S BEHAVIOR."
The result was that once Consentino was removed from the case as a defendent, all of the actions he committed were off the table for discussion. And even though his actions, chacterized by the Court as, contemptuous, were the prime reason for the suit in the first place, thereby costing the Town thousands of dollars, Selectman Sapia and Childs voted to pay his personal attorney in the matter with taxpayer money! And what did the town get for it's hard- earned money? You may ask, On 31 separate questions asked of the Chief by Mrs. Grant, the answer was "On advise of counsel, I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me." This from a 30 year Chief of police! If you "refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate you" doesn't it follow that you did something incriminating in the first place? By the way, how could the two defendents, who benefitted from Mr. Consentino's testimony, vote to spend taxpayer money on his personal legal expenses? Isn't that a conflict? They also received Mr. Sapia making the ridiculous statement that "We never cut anyone off, or threatened to remove anyone from meetings" This was an attempt to contradict Budget Committee Chair Acciard's testimony that the Board of Selectmen threatened him with removal(by the police) if he continued to ask the board how they were able to purchase an SUV 8 days after the election without even a vote to do so. At the April 18, 2005 selectmen's meeting. A review of the tape of that meeting shows the chairman of the board of selectmen saying in response to Acciard's question "we will not answer questions on that subject, if you continue with these questions I will have my men remove you" .
Ultimately this case was the victim of a weak pleading, self- representation unschooled in the law, and the timing that allowed Mr. Consentino to once again escape any accountability for his actions.
It appeared that the Court agreed with this blog in that one can do many things that are morally reprehensible, but technically legal. You cross the line of what is the right thing long before you get to the line of what is legal. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have town officials that stopped short BEFORE crossing the what is right line, and never got anywhere near the illegal line?
Saturday, January 27
Atkinson Reporter: Your Citizen's Blog
Patriot said...
Publius and Ulysses, your Blog is being talked about by a lot of
folks in Town so I had to check it out. My hat is off to the two of
you for supplying a venue to some of us that are very interested
in what’s going on in our Town but because of our work
environments are unable to participate in Meetings to be
verbally heard.
NH is one of the last places that still use the Town Meeting form
of government which dates back to our fore fathers. It is here,
that we, the public, get to debate issues that affect our Town. In
the old days people gathered at the Grange, the Town Church or
the Village Store to discuss and debate the issues of the day
“without ridiculing people's positions”. They all knew one another
so when Town meeting came around most everyone was well
informed and educated about the issues.
Today with our highly mobile society, chat room and cell phones,
we barely know our neighbors, never mind what’s happening at
Town Hall. You guys may have stumbled on to something that
every Town in NH should have; a way for the people to voice
their opinions openly and get educated about the issues.
I’ve even tried on several occasions to use the Eagle Tribune
but they have refused to publish several Editorials that have
been controversial about our Town Government.
When Town Governments try to control the information that
rightfully belongs to all the Citizens, Free Patriots must rise
up and defend our God given Freedoms.
Live Free or Die still means something in this State.
January 27, 2007 5:47 PM
Publius and Ulysses, your Blog is being talked about by a lot of
folks in Town so I had to check it out. My hat is off to the two of
you for supplying a venue to some of us that are very interested
in what’s going on in our Town but because of our work
environments are unable to participate in Meetings to be
verbally heard.
NH is one of the last places that still use the Town Meeting form
of government which dates back to our fore fathers. It is here,
that we, the public, get to debate issues that affect our Town. In
the old days people gathered at the Grange, the Town Church or
the Village Store to discuss and debate the issues of the day
“without ridiculing people's positions”. They all knew one another
so when Town meeting came around most everyone was well
informed and educated about the issues.
Today with our highly mobile society, chat room and cell phones,
we barely know our neighbors, never mind what’s happening at
Town Hall. You guys may have stumbled on to something that
every Town in NH should have; a way for the people to voice
their opinions openly and get educated about the issues.
I’ve even tried on several occasions to use the Eagle Tribune
but they have refused to publish several Editorials that have
been controversial about our Town Government.
When Town Governments try to control the information that
rightfully belongs to all the Citizens, Free Patriots must rise
up and defend our God given Freedoms.
Live Free or Die still means something in this State.
January 27, 2007 5:47 PM
Replace lost response file
In an un-explained computer clitch, the original Publius posting
entitled "Statue? Monument? ....Or Cell Tower?" got erased,
along with its response comments. While Publius tries to find
a copy of his original posting to re-post, fortunately, Ulysses
happened to have a print-out of response comments to that
Publius posting, so we can re-create, at the present time, at
least the response postings.
anonymous said...
Witholding information, giving misleading information, and
fabricating information are tactics frequently used by those
with a personal, political or financial objective. Doesn't
surprise me what has been described.
Jan. 17, 2007 5:31 AM
Publius said...
Evidently there is a petitioned warrant article to have true experts
in the field of communications look at this and determine A) if
there is truely a need. B) how great a need. C) how best to fill that
need (at least two options), and D) if a tower is needed, where
does it need to go and why, and how high and at what cost?
It is the opinion of this blog that these issues need to be studied
by people without an interest in the outcome, for the protection of
the townspeople.
Jan. 17, 2007, 7:53 PM
anonymous said....
Atkinson Residents, do not believe everything that you see here
in this type of blog. The assumptions and coward remarks made
by a select few, who also have had the opportunity to get involved
and be part of the solution should be ignored and discounted.
Publius, if you spent your time being a positive role model or
influence, I bet you could be a great asset to the Town. But egos
and arrogance get in the way....
Jan. 24, 2007 2:00PM
Publius said....
Welcome, Anonymous. I can see that you do not understand the
purpose of this blog, nor the objective. The purpose here is to
have a conversation about town politics. As you can see, we only
moderate comments for use of language and tone, not ideology.
Further, on this blog we do not call names, nor make broad
unsubstantiated assertions about subjects about which we are
ignorant.
As we have stated before, Publius is not one person, but a pen
name under which many people are contributing, much as the
original appearance of Publius in American Politics.
You decry this blog and its management and purpose, but you
present no facts, no substantiation. This sounds similar to when
our board of selectmen use public meetings to slander residents
who disagree with them, offering no facts, merely editorial. If you
can find facts that this blog has stated which are inaccurate, please
reveal them and if you are correct we will apologize on this blog.
If you find analysis or commentary with which you disagree,
speak up civilly and we can have a conversation about it.
We welcome debate on the issues as long as it occurs in public.
It is the secrecy and back room deals with which we have problems.
January 24, 2007, 6:38 PM
bridgehead 03 said....
I have been an Atkinson Resident for over 20 yrs. My wife and I
moved here because it was a quaint New England Village with
really nice Villagers living in it. I remember the old Grange, the
stone walls, the country roads, the nice schools, and low tax rates.
These were all reasons why we settled here even though I was
traveling around the world in my job.
The reason Atkinson is Atkinson is because years ago the Town
Fathers had the foresight to hire Hans Klunder, a Master Planner,
who established growth rules to keep the Town a New England
Village. These rules have stood the test of time. Even after 4
Condo Projects and a Golf Course, the Town has managed to keep
its New England Charm. The new Town Hall, Dow Common, new
Fire Station, Police station, Recreation Center and modifications
to Atkinson Academy were all painstakinlly planned for. The
latest town modification, the new Library, has been in the
planning process for over 5 yrs and by the looks of things will
be a facility the town can be proud of.
This brings me to the latest Tower of Babble issues.
The three Stooges and their henchmen are wanting to deface
our town center and spend $300K plus of our hard earned Tax
Money, all in the name of Police Safety. I worry about people
who repeatedly use the "putting our life on the line" syyndrome,
which has become very popular since 9-11. I'm not sure Lt.
Baldwin or Selectman Sapia even know what that means. If the
problem is so critical and dangerous, did I miss the Emergency
Town Meeting to rectify the problem? While this issue will take
at least 18 months to resolve, what action has Lt. Baldwin taken
to protect his men and us? Jack and Billy have both stated we
must have a Cell Phone Tower in the center of town at any cost
in order to be safe? I just don't understand the problem. It really
doesn't matters though, because the Cell Phone Tower is the
answer. Did you know there are at least 5 Cell Phone Towers
within 5 nm of Atkinson, but I guess they can't save us because
they're busy.
In the 20 yrs I've lived in town I've not heard that we have had
a Communication problem. I haven't heard the Fire Department
or DPW complain that this is an issue. As a matter of fact, the
Police Chief on several occasions has stated that he has great
radio coverage from his mobile Vehicle Radios throughout
Town. So again, what is the problem? What are the operational
requirements? What are the technical requirements? What are
the future needs? What about the NH Emergency Network?
How much does this all cost? Can we get a HLS Grant? All
great questions and the six page folder stuffer Billy and the
boys generated doesn't even begin to address these things.
The issue, as I understand, is that the Police 5 watt portable
hand-held radios don't work well in some spots in town. I
guess Lt. Baldwin wants to be able to talk to the Chief as he
performs horse-mounted patrols throughout the Village.
This problem can all be simply solved without a Tower.
This is not a Line of Sight issue. A taller tower doesn't fix this
problem. The Town needs to build a Town Communication
system that takes in all the Town's Communication Require-
ments, not just a special interest group's idea of a good deal.
By putting repeaters in the vehicles and at Busby's Cell Phone
Tower (354ft) along with a Base Station/Repeater at the Fire
Station (418ft), a tower is not required. The cost for this is
easily under $75K.
This issue, like everything else we have done, needs to be
studied by competent Technical Communication Engineers
before some good- doers ruin our New England Village.
Jan. 24, 2007 4:56 PM
entitled "Statue? Monument? ....Or Cell Tower?" got erased,
along with its response comments. While Publius tries to find
a copy of his original posting to re-post, fortunately, Ulysses
happened to have a print-out of response comments to that
Publius posting, so we can re-create, at the present time, at
least the response postings.
anonymous said...
Witholding information, giving misleading information, and
fabricating information are tactics frequently used by those
with a personal, political or financial objective. Doesn't
surprise me what has been described.
Jan. 17, 2007 5:31 AM
Publius said...
Evidently there is a petitioned warrant article to have true experts
in the field of communications look at this and determine A) if
there is truely a need. B) how great a need. C) how best to fill that
need (at least two options), and D) if a tower is needed, where
does it need to go and why, and how high and at what cost?
It is the opinion of this blog that these issues need to be studied
by people without an interest in the outcome, for the protection of
the townspeople.
Jan. 17, 2007, 7:53 PM
anonymous said....
Atkinson Residents, do not believe everything that you see here
in this type of blog. The assumptions and coward remarks made
by a select few, who also have had the opportunity to get involved
and be part of the solution should be ignored and discounted.
Publius, if you spent your time being a positive role model or
influence, I bet you could be a great asset to the Town. But egos
and arrogance get in the way....
Jan. 24, 2007 2:00PM
Publius said....
Welcome, Anonymous. I can see that you do not understand the
purpose of this blog, nor the objective. The purpose here is to
have a conversation about town politics. As you can see, we only
moderate comments for use of language and tone, not ideology.
Further, on this blog we do not call names, nor make broad
unsubstantiated assertions about subjects about which we are
ignorant.
As we have stated before, Publius is not one person, but a pen
name under which many people are contributing, much as the
original appearance of Publius in American Politics.
You decry this blog and its management and purpose, but you
present no facts, no substantiation. This sounds similar to when
our board of selectmen use public meetings to slander residents
who disagree with them, offering no facts, merely editorial. If you
can find facts that this blog has stated which are inaccurate, please
reveal them and if you are correct we will apologize on this blog.
If you find analysis or commentary with which you disagree,
speak up civilly and we can have a conversation about it.
We welcome debate on the issues as long as it occurs in public.
It is the secrecy and back room deals with which we have problems.
January 24, 2007, 6:38 PM
bridgehead 03 said....
I have been an Atkinson Resident for over 20 yrs. My wife and I
moved here because it was a quaint New England Village with
really nice Villagers living in it. I remember the old Grange, the
stone walls, the country roads, the nice schools, and low tax rates.
These were all reasons why we settled here even though I was
traveling around the world in my job.
The reason Atkinson is Atkinson is because years ago the Town
Fathers had the foresight to hire Hans Klunder, a Master Planner,
who established growth rules to keep the Town a New England
Village. These rules have stood the test of time. Even after 4
Condo Projects and a Golf Course, the Town has managed to keep
its New England Charm. The new Town Hall, Dow Common, new
Fire Station, Police station, Recreation Center and modifications
to Atkinson Academy were all painstakinlly planned for. The
latest town modification, the new Library, has been in the
planning process for over 5 yrs and by the looks of things will
be a facility the town can be proud of.
This brings me to the latest Tower of Babble issues.
The three Stooges and their henchmen are wanting to deface
our town center and spend $300K plus of our hard earned Tax
Money, all in the name of Police Safety. I worry about people
who repeatedly use the "putting our life on the line" syyndrome,
which has become very popular since 9-11. I'm not sure Lt.
Baldwin or Selectman Sapia even know what that means. If the
problem is so critical and dangerous, did I miss the Emergency
Town Meeting to rectify the problem? While this issue will take
at least 18 months to resolve, what action has Lt. Baldwin taken
to protect his men and us? Jack and Billy have both stated we
must have a Cell Phone Tower in the center of town at any cost
in order to be safe? I just don't understand the problem. It really
doesn't matters though, because the Cell Phone Tower is the
answer. Did you know there are at least 5 Cell Phone Towers
within 5 nm of Atkinson, but I guess they can't save us because
they're busy.
In the 20 yrs I've lived in town I've not heard that we have had
a Communication problem. I haven't heard the Fire Department
or DPW complain that this is an issue. As a matter of fact, the
Police Chief on several occasions has stated that he has great
radio coverage from his mobile Vehicle Radios throughout
Town. So again, what is the problem? What are the operational
requirements? What are the technical requirements? What are
the future needs? What about the NH Emergency Network?
How much does this all cost? Can we get a HLS Grant? All
great questions and the six page folder stuffer Billy and the
boys generated doesn't even begin to address these things.
The issue, as I understand, is that the Police 5 watt portable
hand-held radios don't work well in some spots in town. I
guess Lt. Baldwin wants to be able to talk to the Chief as he
performs horse-mounted patrols throughout the Village.
This problem can all be simply solved without a Tower.
This is not a Line of Sight issue. A taller tower doesn't fix this
problem. The Town needs to build a Town Communication
system that takes in all the Town's Communication Require-
ments, not just a special interest group's idea of a good deal.
By putting repeaters in the vehicles and at Busby's Cell Phone
Tower (354ft) along with a Base Station/Repeater at the Fire
Station (418ft), a tower is not required. The cost for this is
easily under $75K.
This issue, like everything else we have done, needs to be
studied by competent Technical Communication Engineers
before some good- doers ruin our New England Village.
Jan. 24, 2007 4:56 PM
Thursday, January 25
A Conversation....
Well Comments are stating to roll in, some are petty, but most are supportive.
Isn't nice to have a conversation about issues without personalities getting in the way? In this forum we can debate facts and commentary openly, in front of all who care to watch, without those who have no arguments, or can not defend their positions, being able to engage in the "politics of personal destruction". If these conversations were taking place at a selectmen's meeting Publius and Ullyses would have already been spoken about by the selectmen as "cranks, lunatics, people with personal vendettas against the chief, or the police, or the selectmen, or the town, or as rabble-rousers, troublemakers."
When you can't throw stones at the messenger you are forced to deal with the message. If you can not defend your positions, perhaps they are not worthy of defense. On this blog, anyone with something to contribute to the discussion may say his piece without fear of reprisal. Their will be no selectmen screaming at them, turning off cameras, no poor pity me speeches, no 20 minutes of slandering the person who had the courage to shine the light of public disclosure upon the improper actions of town officials, no police chief chasing him out of the room screaming, then proceeding to defame him for 20 minutes on the towns dime. none of that.
This blog thinks of this as refreshing. It is obvious form ccomments made by Mr. Sapia at the Jan.22 selectmen's meeting, and Mr. Polito at the Jan. 16 Budget meeting that there are town officials that do not think of this blog as an open conversation, perhaps because it is their actions of which this blog has been critical. This blog's suggestion to them would be; don't shoot the commentator, we didn't create the situation we only report, you decide. We are not saying that you did something that you did not, we are discussing what you DID do. If you don't like that maybe you should act honorably.
Isn't nice to have a conversation about issues without personalities getting in the way? In this forum we can debate facts and commentary openly, in front of all who care to watch, without those who have no arguments, or can not defend their positions, being able to engage in the "politics of personal destruction". If these conversations were taking place at a selectmen's meeting Publius and Ullyses would have already been spoken about by the selectmen as "cranks, lunatics, people with personal vendettas against the chief, or the police, or the selectmen, or the town, or as rabble-rousers, troublemakers."
When you can't throw stones at the messenger you are forced to deal with the message. If you can not defend your positions, perhaps they are not worthy of defense. On this blog, anyone with something to contribute to the discussion may say his piece without fear of reprisal. Their will be no selectmen screaming at them, turning off cameras, no poor pity me speeches, no 20 minutes of slandering the person who had the courage to shine the light of public disclosure upon the improper actions of town officials, no police chief chasing him out of the room screaming, then proceeding to defame him for 20 minutes on the towns dime. none of that.
This blog thinks of this as refreshing. It is obvious form ccomments made by Mr. Sapia at the Jan.22 selectmen's meeting, and Mr. Polito at the Jan. 16 Budget meeting that there are town officials that do not think of this blog as an open conversation, perhaps because it is their actions of which this blog has been critical. This blog's suggestion to them would be; don't shoot the commentator, we didn't create the situation we only report, you decide. We are not saying that you did something that you did not, we are discussing what you DID do. If you don't like that maybe you should act honorably.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ATKINSON's Vietnam HONOR ROLL as VOTED and PASSED by 2005 Town Meeting and re-approved at Special Town Meeting Sept. 12
